Collins v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Fmmet District Gowrt. — Hon. George H; Carr, Judge. Action to recover for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury, and at the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff defendant moved for a verdict on the following grounds: First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fmmet District Gowrt. — Hon. George H; Carr, Judge. Action to recover for personal injuries. The case was tried to a jury, and at the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff defendant moved for a verdict on the following grounds: First. For that by plaintiff’s own showing he is guilty of such contributory negligence as to preclude Ms- right of recovery in walking on the track, and not observing the approach.of the car that struck him, and he has not shown any negligence against the company. Second. The evidence shows that the duties of the plaintiff did not require him to…
1DissentBeck, C. J.
(dissenting). — I. The evidence shows-that the duties of the plaintiff required him to go upon the railroad tracks at the locality where the accident occurred, and that at the time he was injured he was. upon the tracks in the discharge of his duty. It is also shown, without conflict in the evidence, that by the uniform and unvaried custom and course of business of the defendant’s employes in attaching the combination car to the train it was never moved upon the “passing track,” but always, upon the arrival of the *354train to which it was to be attached, it was taken from the “passing track,”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Crowley v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- Beems v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Steele v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Pringle v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1884